On Tuesday, the United States became one of the last nations to
formally denounce the execution of minors. In a 5-4 ruling, the
Supreme Court called the death penalty in such cases a
“disproportionate” punishment. The ruling is a step in
the right direction, but the United States should join other
nations in banning the death penalty altogether.
The decision stemmed from a case which began 12 years ago in
Missouri when 17-year-old Christopher Simmons killed a woman by
binding her and throwing her off a bridge.
Under state law, and based on a previous Supreme Court ruling,
Simmons was sentenced to death. Twenty other states have similar
laws allowing the execution of people who commit crimes while 16 or
17.
Tuesday’s ruling will nullify those laws and save 70
minors who are currently on death row.
The primary argument upheld by the Supreme Court’s
decision is that minors are not as capable of understanding the
consequences of their actions as adults are, and thus, execution is
a “disproportionate” punishment for juvenile
actions.
Considering the evidence of cognitive differences between adults
and juveniles, it is troubling that only five of the nine justices
voted in favor of the ruling.
Four dissenting justices, including Chief Justice William
Rehnquist, supported the disturbing and illogical policy of
executing those who are viewed incapable of voting, gambling or
drinking. These justices primarily based their positions on the
fact that there is no historical precedence or “national
consensus” against juvenile executions.
Equally troubling, the majority ruling further strengthens the
legal support for the execution of adults: While the death penalty
is disproportionate for the crimes of minors, the ruling also
implies the converse ““ that adult criminals executed by the
government are deserving of the punishment.
It is not surprising that the Supreme Court would maintain the
death penalty for adults, and indeed, that was not the question
they were trying to address.
But this case highlights how far the United States is from
having a humane and progressive justice system.
It has been shown repeatedly that the death penalty has little
to no effect on crime rates. And aside from a thoughtless adherence
to traditional philosophies, the only conceivable explanation for
supporting the death penalty is that it serves as a form of
vengeance for the victims of heinous crimes.
No one disagrees that criminals should be punished, but the
European Union and most other nations around the globe have proven
it is possible to punish criminals without resorting to barbaric
standards of vengeance and eye-for-an-eye retribution.
This ruling is another step toward correcting an archaic and
unfair system. The United States government, so often a cheerleader
of moral superiority, must respond more quickly and substantively
to this injustice.